No they are not for our benefit. The areas of economic desolation in the country prove it. do you remember atime when English manufactured cars out numbered foreign ones on our roads? Not to mention the fishing industry which stretched round our whole coast.

I don't need some twat of a journalist to tell me what I have been witnessing for forty yeras, and what you would have seen too, if you'd been affected.

Oh then we get...that was the wicked tories...no it bloody wasn't ...it started during a Labour administration and went on uninterrrupted by any change of administration because so many of our politicians are corrupt.

”Those regulations are for our benefit. They ensure that the food we buy is safe to eat, that our employers have to make us safe at work for example. I want those regulations kept. Regulation started in the UK long before the EU In 1833 the Government passed a Factory Act to improve conditions for children working in factories. The first law in British history to regulate the production and sale of food began in 1266. The Assisa Panis et Cervisić, or Assize of Bread and Ale was developed in late Medieval English Law to regulate the price, weight and quality of manufactured bread and beer. Mines and Collieries Act 1842, commonly known as the Mines Act 1842, was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It prohibited all girls and boys under ten years old from working underground in coal mines Adulteration of Food and Drink and Drugs Act 1872 made the appointment of public analysts mandatory and made it an offence to sell mixtures (chicory and coffee, for example) unless these was declared. The Act covered drugs for first time, introduced an element of central control. Of course more recently the Cullen report on piper alpha caused a stepchange in safety in the entire worldwide oil industry

As can be demonstrated the UK was the first country to initiate legislation to protect people in the industrial age, therefore such continued legislation is not dependent on the EU. It is completely illogical to believe such legislation would cease after leaving the EU.”

And, for precisely the reasons you have kindly detailed above, it is completely illogical to believe such legislation has been, as Al has allowed himself to be brainwashed into believing, ‘forced upon us’ by the EU. The UK has been willing and co-operative partners with the rest of the EU, not held by it in helpless serfdom, the way Brexshiteers would have the feeble-minded believe.

There are many employment-related issues that are not subject to EU legislation. These include pay (the National Minimum Wage is a home-grown policy), industrial action, and vocational training. Enforcement mechanisms, which are essential if rights are to be respected in practice, are also a matter for national governments alone

If the UK leaves the EU, it not clear that there will be a bonfire of employment legislation. so why make an issue of it? more scare tactics?

Those regulations are for our benefit. They ensure that the food we buy is safe to eat, that our employers have to make us safe at work for example. I want those regulations kept. Regulation started in the UK long before the EU In 1833 the Government passed a Factory Act to improve conditions for children working in factories. The first law in British history to regulate the production and sale of food began in 1266. The Assisa Panis et Cervisić, or Assize of Bread and Ale was developed in late Medieval English Law to regulate the price, weight and quality of manufactured bread and beer. Mines and Collieries Act 1842, commonly known as the Mines Act 1842, was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It prohibited all girls and boys under ten years old from working underground in coal mines Adulteration of Food and Drink and Drugs Act 1872 made the appointment of public analysts mandatory and made it an offence to sell mixtures (chicory and coffee, for example) unless these was declared. The Act covered drugs for first time, introduced an element of central control. Of course more recently the Cullen report on piper alpha caused a stepchange in safety in the entire worldwide oil industry

As can be demonstrated the UK was the first country to initiate legislation to protect people in the industrial age, therefore such continued legislation is not dependent on the EU. It is completely illogical to believe such legislation would cease after leaving the EU.

One of the parallels I see is that after the most devastating civil war this country has ever known, the Long Parliament wanted to put things back as they had been before the war and restore Charles to the throne.

Now after a bitterly divisive referendum campaign Parliament wants to put things back as they had been before the vote.

Will we see the Brexit party take the place of the New Model Army and give us a 'New Rump Parliament'?

Just now many people, Stanron? Even if all 17.4 million who voted against staying in the EU felt strongly enough to do something it is still well under 1/3 of "the people". I wouldn't bother with the popcorn if I were you.

Anyone remember how the Long Parliament got to be the the Rump Parliament and why? I can see parallels between then and now although I'm not sure which way those parallels go. We have an unresolved referendum, they had an unresolved civil war. Then it was Parliament against Charles, now it is The People against Parliament.

Those regulations are for our benefit. They ensure that the food we buy is safe to eat, that our employers have to make us safe at work for example. I want those regulations kept. All of them, and more. Without them irresponsible and unsavoury people and countries will be able to put any old rubbish on the dinner tables of our children. And the US ambassador has made it clear that his country intends to do exactly that.

That has proven to be nonsense over and over again, Al. The UK has been an important part of the EU for nearly 50 years. We have played a major role in getting these "hundred of rehulations" (sic) passed. If there was anything we were dead set against, we could veto it. If we leave the EU and want to sell to the remaining member states we will still have to comply to their regulations. The difference being we will no longer have a say in What they are. You have fallen prey to the media anti-EU campaign that has gone on since we joined. Do yourself a favour and look up whether any of the Sun or Mail scare stories about bent bananas, banning playtime or any other such nonsense are actually true. Find me one bit of poor legislation the we have not had a passing over the last 50 years.

Well I don't see how Brexit can happen, when our elected representatives are all dead set against it.

I tend to think parliamentary power trumps these crummy referendums and any euro nonsense.

Shouldn't get too excited Iains - its never going to happen.

But basically I agree. Sling out the the monarchy, and the aristocracy, and the Russian gangsters, de glamourise recreational drugs put them on the NHS (thus getting rid of many criminals) - spend the money on building hi tech infrastructure and factories.

The red revolution! Then think Boris and Farage. In europe or out, a right couple of wankers!

Al, the reality is that people do not want to be bossed by faceless bureaucrats based in Brussels and Strasbourg, neither do they want to pay annual reparations of Danegeld. They want some semblance of control over their own lives and see the EU encroaching on every aspect of living like a demented Orwellian nightmare from 1984. They want their sovereignty back. When the Bilderberg conference of 2019 will have the following topics(among others) it is time to be worried. Arch globalists are not your friends. The key topics for discussion this year are:

1. A Stable Strategic Order 2. What Next for Europe?

6. The Future of Capitalism 7. Brexit (how to frustrate it more likely)

Trickle down is a myth to fool the little people. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.(the name is Iain by the way. It had already been used hence the s on the end)

That's not the killer argument Iains (is that really a name with an 'S' on the end?).

If you'd done a referendum on tn the days after the Warrington bombing, Warren Point, Enniskillen, or The Birmingham and pub bombing - they would have reintroduced capital punishment. That would have attracted millions of US dollars to the IRA - the Yank politicians were already lining up for photo opportunities with McGuinness and Adams.

The killer argument is that the EU has passed hundred of regulations that have impacted on fishing, car making, agriculture, textiles, and tax regulstions about music royalties which affect the economy of England - regulations which they don't observe - but we being a law abiding nation, do.

People who live in affluent parts of the country or who follow professions unaffected don't see it, or give a fig or a fart about their less fortunate citizens, whom they characterise as Brexshitter oafs. Don't sink to their level.

We cross-posted, Iains. My comment about vague generalities was not directed at your post.

When I was a member of Charter '88 one of the demands was for a written constitution. Mrs Thatcher wrote a response that said many of the most despotic countries had a written constitution. On that, at least, she was quite right: such a constitution is not a solution, it is at best a tool, and it is a tool that only works within the rule of law. Claims the judges are enemies of the people does not fit well with calls for a legal framework like a constitution.

And of course it is unfortunately nearly unavoidable to consider the rise and fall of the Weimar Republic when thinking about this. Introduction of a new constitution, reform of the houses and then takeover by a demagogue is not really I model I would want to follow. Again, I believe most Brexiteers would not want that either. SO what do they think can be done to prevent it?

It was not really a rhetorical question, Dave. I think most remainers do think what you said is more or less right.

But Brexiteers proclaim their love for their country, and I am sure the vast majority do so honestly. SO presumably they do not wish asset stripping to be the next stage after Brexit. So what they do think the Brexit Party will do should Brexit be completed is an interesting question. I hope they can answer with more than vague generalities.

Farage can use one argument that trumps all others: Respect the referendum result. This is a killer argument for both Tory and Labour parties because their respective MPs in many areas are betraying the vote for article 50 and the last election manifesto for both parties. This raises questions about the duty of an MP towards his electorate in a way that has never before brought into such stark contrast between a referendum promise, a manifesto promise and arrogant dismissal of the electorate. The no confidence vote in Phillip Lee in Guido has generated nearly a thousand comments. An interesting read on the span of electoral feeling. I recommend it is read. It can explain why Farage has such a level of support for his party and it is increasing. The more labour and tory behave like rabid rats in a sack the greater their destruction. The establishment is scared stiff of Farage and the Brexit party because on his simple message he is unassailable. It is not purely about Brexit, it is about respecting democracy. That argument has gained support from both sides of the spectrum and the longer the political bunfight among the two parties continues the more support he gains. Ideally, the long term the establishment of the Brexit Party as a dominant force could lead to a written constitution and root and branch reform of both houses. Such actions are unthinkable under the present regime. It would be nice to think the couple of deselection procedures presently underway turn into a flood. There is no shortage of candidates.

I guess it is a rhetorical question DMcG. We all know what comes after. Farage and others like him are just it it for money and power. Without EU intervention they will be free to asset strip the UK and turn it into a tax haven in which to keep their ill gotten gains. We can only hope some semblance of reason returns to the electorate before that happens.

I agree with that, Al. Throwing insults around doesn't help anyone or inform anyone. I don't subscribe to the idea we are about winning an argument here - no one is likely to change anyone else's mind. So the best we can gain out of it is an understanding of the other's point of view, with the objective of understanding it, not demolishing it.

So, for example, Iains said at one point 'it has moved beyond Brexit now' and there is, I suspect, a lot of truth in that. Imagine for a moment that the new Tory leader was the hardest of hard Brexiteers, and somehow took Britain out of the EU as near immediately as possible. Does anyone believe Farage would then emulate Holmes and retire to the Sussex Downs to quietly keep bees? I don't, for one. He would probably say something along the lines of the traditional parties being forced into it by his party, it shows the power he wealds and only he can be the True Saviour of Democracy. And it is for this reason I ask about what Brexit supporters think his plans are if he gets no-deal implemented. Because we can be pretty sure he has ideas for after that.

"The Conservative leadership contest is dominated by white men who've furthered inequality in various departments. The winner will be chosen by a membership who are 71 per cent male, 97 per cent white and 44 per cent aged over 65"

"The choice of Tory party leader will be unrepresentative and undemocratic. And yet this prime minister could be the one to lead us back into or out of Europe."

and yes it has been confirmed, the Pope is a Catholic.

This is the sort of whining expected from the gruniard.

Strangely enough those that decide these things are our elected representatives. If I could be bothered I could dig out leftie postings saying our elected elders and betters know best and should be left to get on with the job.

why is the milkshake-stained man frog on question time so often? you do have a point there, iain = it would be good to have more alternative/socialist/environmental/workers/immigrant voices on the media.

in the european election - given the chance to vote for brexit why did their vote drop from 17 million to 5ish million? i thought folk were supposed to be quite keen on that sort of thing.

I think we're at a table where the game is rigged, and we need to walk away.

It is of no important, but this raised a silly image in my mind, which might raise a laugh. Most cruise ships have casinos, which are of course designed so the house profits overall. They are, if you like, rigged games. So get up and walk away by all means, but be very careful you don't walk too far - the casino and ship provides a much warmer and safer environment than the ocean.

I am not suggesting plagues of frogs, all major businesses pulling out of the UK, and so on and so forth. In fact I do think many of the claims made by the remain camp are daft because they only look at the impact of a risk and not an estimated probability of it occurring: you need to consider both.

I am instead asking those who propose no-deal to make it as beneficial as possible. That means thinking about what could go wrong (e.g. shortage of medicine) and either taking action to mitigate it (buying fridges) or honestly accepting this is a risk we are knowingly taken.

Businesses do this all the time. So much so there is an international standard (ISO 31000), used in the US as well as the UK and he rest of the EU, which describes best practice for this. It is not some wild and weird thing we are trying to impose on no-deals out of hatred for the idea. It is normal, everyday common practice for managing change. If you went to a bank for a business loan to cover a major change, they would ask to see your business plan, part of that would normally include a risk register.

I assume you buy some forms of insurance - car, perhaps, or house. The price of those is set through this sot of mechanism. They estimate as best they can the possible risks (theft, etc), look at things that mitigate them (lockable garage? burglar alarm?) and set the price accordingly.

Let us say you are right - a no deal Brexit will raise many problems. Driving over a cliff. Walking into lamp post. Poor Elton John is consumed with shame with his fellow Englishmen.

The land prey tp pestilence and famine.

Well if that is the case, you can't really make plans and policies, if things are going to be as bad as that.

So why do it?

Well I suppose, yes its that important. I think we're at a table where the game is rigged, and we need to walk away.

Donald Trump has been criticised for his measures towards Mexico, but I think he has a point. If you want to to sell your goods to a country - you should not be pursuing policies which will affect the prosperity of that country. You can't treat a trading partner like a milk cow.

”i dunno if its just my cheap computer but i keep flying past the message i want to see. its so long this thread that my computer can't cope with it.”

Al, if you click on the number showing the total number of posts instead of clicking on the thread title, the thread will open in ‘pages’. If you then click on the highest bracketed Page no. at the top, it will take you to the most recent posts.

Really? "The price of democracy and the price of sovereignty is high. People have died for this. The economics of this sometimes isn't as important as the principle of it" is not suggesting we will pay a price?

That link is scary, DMcG. When even the brexit part are saying leaving will hurt the UK economy for 30 years we begin to see why no one on here has come up with any good news yet. Assuming you mean the Lucy Harris link. To paraphrase she says Brexit at any cost, and answering points being made by several persons:Campbell then asked Harris to try and elaborate on her comment and it wouldn't exactly fill your heart with hope and prosperity, even if you were the most staunch of Brexiteers. Well...I don't...I mean...are you looking for a number...or?I think short term there will be an effect on the economy. Short-term yes. Campbell: How long is short term? Harris?How long is short term? I don't know. The next 30 years? I think short term there will be some effects on it. A flabbergasted Campbell seemed shocked that she would predict such an extensive length of time, who quickly figured out that things wouldn't start to get better until three years before his 90th birthday. Harris replied again:The price of democracy and the price of sovereignty is high. People have died for this. The economics of this sometimes isn't as important as the principle of it.

Assuming she was giving her honest answers to the points being put, there is a distinct lack of any comment that there would be 30 years of negative effects. Clearly we have taken over 40 years becoming entangled with EU. Getting clear of that influence will also take time.

The transcript certainly reads as if the presenter is not being impartial, but siding with the two pro-EU activists Femi Oluwole and Madeleina Kay against the single pro-Brexit spokesman.

The Independent does make one comment (before the transcript starts) which appears even handed:During an appearance on BBC Radio 5 Live, Lucy Harris a member of the Brexit Party who is running in the European Elections in Yorkshire and Humber claimed that we might not see any benefits for another 30 years.

That is quite different from predicting 30 years of doom & gloom, but clearly a paragraph (encapsulating what the quotes actually say) which will be ignored by Remainers.

That might come across as more aggressive than I intended. Let's try again. I presume you are at least willing to accept no deal. Certainly many Brexit supporters are. But there are even varieties of no-deal. For example, a large number of fridges, we are told, have been bought to stockpile medicines to prevent a shortage in the event of no-deal. Grayling, for all his incompetence, appears to have tried to arrange alternative transportation for goods in the event of no deal.

So you can have a no deal, while simultaneously trying to identify risks in it and then taking steps to minimise those risks.

At the other extreme, is no-deal with no attempt to mitigate any effects at all. And in between are thousands of variations depending on what you see as risks and how great you assess them to be.

While my personal opinion is of course that remain would be better, I do not regard anyone who wants no deal and is prepared to assess the risks and then act to mitigate them as stupid. And fully own the consequences of Brexit, good or bad.

The Brexit party have concentrated on Brexit. They are focused, unlike Labour with their ridiculous campaign poster in Peterborough emphasizing law and order in a campaign caused by the dismissal of a criminal labour Mp. (To steal a phrase: You could not make it up!) When the two "has-been" parties are forced into an election, then is the time for a slick party manifesto. Unlike the career politician amateurs in the other parties Brexit will have candidates with real world experience, honed in the cut and thrust of business, bringing a level of professionalism their opponents can only drool over.

That link is scary, DMcG. When even the brexit part are saying leaving will hurt the UK economy for 30 years we begin to see why no one on here has come up with any good news yet.

Still, I suppose when we get are cuntry back we will have unlimited wealth, good weather all year round and unicorns in every garden. It will all be worthwhile. Shame no one on here will be about to see it.